Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pghquest, <snip>it appears to me you have a very limited grasp about what goes on in a hospital.
I agree. I recall a conversation a while back when you pgh could not understand that excpept for ER doctors and a very few others, docs do not work for the hospitals.
Originally Posted by Iluvmycountry If we find an emergency we treat or transfer the pt to a hospital that can. My point is we can't just say AHH this is not an emergency go home.
Its like arguing with my children.
YES YOU CAN BY LAW.. NOT BY HOSPITAL POLICY.. Do you not understand the difference?
My goodness Pghquest, NO NO NO when a patient comes to the ER we cannot just say AHHH no emergency go home. The whole ER addmission and evaluation MUST happen. Very time consuming, esp when you know there is no emergency. Why is this so hard to grasp? If after the eval we find nothing wrong then yes we send them home. BUT they must be put through the whole ER process and eval. We cannot just say Nope go home no emergency here. So please go talk to your children.. And can we please get back on topic, Oh and look for the flood of emails to you as I will alert every hospital in the country as to your brilliant discovery.. NOT
Pghquest, I am really laughing at the question "Do you not know the difference between an evaluation and treatment?" Let me explain something to you, evaluation of the person with chest pain includes a whole battery of tests, ie: ekg, blood work, vs, their medical hx etc. This is not done in 5 minutes, if we find anything suspicious we then admit them for further workup. If our battery of tests and patients symptoms equal perhaps GERD or indigestion we do what is needed. We treat the patient based on our evaluation and their symptoms. At no point in that evaluation do we think hmmm, we shouldn't just send them home because we don't want to get sued. We actually do care about the person being treated, and finding the correct DX. Thats why we do what we do. Also, I will just brush off your statement about RN's being smarter than that, my skin is alot tougher than you think, and it appears to me you have a very limited grasp about what goes on in a hospital.
You couldnt even find one google link to backup your assertion that hospitals HAVE to treat individuals for non emergencies to dispute the LEGAL links that I have provided that show you that they dont.
For someone who works as an RN, you sure are playing stupid if you dont know that the blood tests etc are part of the EXAMINATION.. Which AGAIN, is legally required by law.. Its AFTER the examination, that if a hospital deems the cause for the patients arrival non threatening, they can indeed refuse to provide care.. I've not only given you examples, but I have provided you with the LEGAL links which back up the GOVERNMENTAL requirements. If the hospital THEN decides to provide care to the patient in order to limit being sued, thats BY CHOICE..
Again, find me ONE location on ANY website to backup the LEGAL demand for a hospital to care for a patient in a NON emergency.. ONE.. It should be pretty easy for you to backup your claim...
Originally Posted by Iluvmycountry If we find an emergency we treat or transfer the pt to a hospital that can. My point is we can't just say AHH this is not an emergency go home.
Its like arguing with my children.
YES YOU CAN BY LAW.. NOT BY HOSPITAL POLICY.. Do you not understand the difference?
My goodness Pghquest, NO NO NO when a patient comes to the ER we cannot just say AHHH no emergency go home. The whole ER addmission and evaluation MUST happen. Very time consuming, esp when you know there is no emergency. Why is this so hard to grasp? If after the eval we find nothing wrong then yes we send them home. BUT they must be put through the whole ER process and eval. We cannot just say Nope go home no emergency here. So please go talk to your children.. And can we please get back on topic, Oh and look for the flood of emails to you as I will alert every hospital in the country as to your brilliant discovery.. NOT
For the love of god will you fn stop and listen. YES THE EVALUATION MUST HAPPEN, I've said that I dont know how many fn times, and even stated that in my examples to you, and pointed this out in the LEGAL GOVERNMENTAL LAWS which insist that the EVALUATION is REQUIRED!!! Its AFTER the evaluation that the governmental laws regulating what hospitals due in NON emergency situations END.. PERIOD...
I agree. I recall a conversation a while back when you pgh could not understand that excpept for ER doctors and a very few others, docs do not work for the hospitals.
There is only three states that forbid hospitals to hire doctors directly. 47 other states do indeed allow hospitals to hire doctors to work for them..
This answer has not changed from the "while back" when individuals tried to paint all state laws as the same..
Pghquestt, here is one more link about the "code" you seem so obsessed with.
Nope, no link to prove that hospitals must care for non emergency patients, AGAIN after the evaluation... Care to try again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvmycountry
Oh and btw, if you came into the ER today with chest pain, and I knew it was you, even after all this banter and belittling of me and my profession, I would still make sure you got the best care medicine could provide.
Yipee.. and if I was managing your money, you can be sure that I'd give you the same returns I get, of course for the fee I require of my clients...
The problem with public option is that it doesn't solve any issues connected with the current system and creates new ones not he least of which is that we have no way to pay for it. CBO says it won't save a dime, so why do we need it?
I agree, Single Payer or nothing
as it is Social Security and Medicare will be over when Dick Armey and FreedomWorks win thier suit. Then we'll be rid of Socialism
Latest from the Hypocrite, bragging about how much federal money he got from the Stimulus Bill he voted again
There is only three states that forbid hospitals to hire doctors directly. 47 other states do indeed allow hospitals to hire doctors to work for them..
This answer has not changed from the "while back" when individuals tried to paint all state laws as the same..
I'm talking about you not understanding that most docs work as "independent contractors", just using the hospital facilities and not being employed by the hospital. The hospital provides the bed, the board, and the nursing care, and the doc comes in and examines the pt and leaves for the most part.
I agree. I recall a conversation a while back when you pgh could not understand that excpept for ER doctors and a very few others, docs do not work for the hospitals.
I can tell you that I have hospitals in my area that have even hired specialty surgeons to be employed by the hospital.
I'm talking about you not understanding that most docs work as "independent contractors", just using the hospital facilities and not being employed by the hospital. The hospital provides the bed, the board, and the nursing care, and the doc comes in and examines the pt and leaves for the most part.
Actually with healthcare going in the direction that it is it is becoming more common for hospitals to HIRE dr's.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
